You're viewing part of a thread.
No, it's not. If you are just walking past that item, you're not consuming the value of that item. If you're being honest about this argument and attempted to make the analogous argument, you wouldn't be watching the movies that you're not paying for. The entire issue is that you're not just walking past the items at the grocery store, you're eating them and not paying for them. A better analogy would be grabbing a magazine off the rack at checkout and taking pictures of all the pages and not paying for it. The magazine is still there and the store was deprived of nothing but yet you're now able to gain the value of that magazine's content without paying for it. That's still stealing. You can either pretend it's not or you can say "Yeah, it's stealing but I'm ok with that because those magazines are garbage anyways".
Lemme use a different, better example. Say I buy used copies of everything I watch. How is that different from watching shows on sketchy streaming websites? Either way I consume the media and the people who made it get nothing. If anything, it seems worse to me for me to lose money and the creators to gain nothing, while some random person on the internet profits from reselling their work after they've already consumed it.
That's not a better example. You're comparing a physical item with tangible scarcity to an intangible product. While you're reading that book, no one else can read that. There is only 1 copy of it. Someone can get another copy of it but the one you hold is physical. Movies and other digital content is intangible. It's not bound by that scarcity.
It would be worse for you to "lose" money and the creators gain nothing but that's not the situation you're discussing. We're discussing a situation where you gain something and the creator gains nothing.
You’re comparing a physical item with tangible scarcity to an intangible product.
And you're ignoring the fact that the producer treats their digital product with no real scarcity as if it was a physical product that cost a significant amount to produce and distribute. By your own reasoning, the digital product should be much cheaper.
If it wasn't for piracy, the product (digital or physical) would be even more expensive. As it is, producers know that if they price too high people will turn to piracy, if that wasn't an option then there would be nothing holding them back.
Neither of those things are true. I'm not ignoring that at all. In fact, I haven't argued anything about the price of media at all. If you don't agree that the value of the product is worth what someone is charging for it, don't buy it.
Your second statement also is not true unless you believe the flawed idea that people are entitled to those products. You've provided a false dichotomy. A third option is that people simply don't find the price being asked worth that amount and simply don't ingest that. Piracy is not the only other option and the idea that not having piracy would mean that things are more expensive is nonsense. People would simply not watch those movies or consume that media and creators/distributors would be forced to lower prices or not make any money and cease to exist.
You said it was different for someone to download something rather than only buy used, simply because that is a physical good of tangible scarcity. The implication clearly is that the good is more valuable because it is scarce, thus the producer doesn't lose out with used sales.
How is it not valid for me to point out that digital goods have no scarcity, and thus should be priced far lower than physical goods which have an inherent cost to produce and distribute, one which digital goods completely avoid?
How are the two situations different in any practical purpose for the producer? With digital piracy, they've experienced no extra cost, but someone else gets to use it who didn't pay the producer. With used goods, they've experienced no extra cost, but someone else gets to use it who didn't pay the producer.
Yes, the original owner can no longer view the product, but how is it any different for the producer - the one you claim is suffering a loss?
Your second statement also is not true unless you believe the flawed idea that people are entitled to those products.
I put it to you that people are entitled to view art. Maybe not entitled for the cost of accessing a place, eg a museum could charge entry (although the best ones don't), but viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience. Nothing is created in isolation, we all stand on the shoulders of people that come before us. Claiming that you deserve "all teh moneys" without fairly paying every one of those who got you there is the root cause of a lot of problems in the world. Most people involved in making these products get paid only once, they don't get paid per copy sold - the ones that do get paid this way actually, by and large, have very little hand in producing it.
In any case, I didn't even argue that! All I said was that producers are charging too much for their goods, and that if piracy wasn't a thing they'd charge even more. You seem to be skirting around any of the valid negative points that the industry itself creates.
At this stage, I think it's abundantly clear that you aren't arguing in good faith, you're just full of shit and parroting a narrative incessantly. There's no reasoning with you because you are inherently unreasonable.Edit: I'm withdrawing the last statement, because I do think there is some reasoning to be had here.
thus should be priced far lower than physical goods
This is a completely separate argument, that's why it's not valid. I'm not arguing about the price that content producers are charging for their products. If people don't think it's worth that price, then they shouldn't buy it. What I am arguing, though, is that, whatever the perceived value of that work, people should not be entitled to consume/ingest that product simply because they disagree with the price. They just shouldn't consume/ingest it.
With digital piracy, they've experienced no extra cost...you claim is suffering a loss?
One is infinite. The other is not. The scope of the loss matters. The time it takes someone to produce a physical good may be greater than an intangible good but there is time and effort taken in either case. You can make the argument that those differences should be reflective of that, and I would probably agree, but that's not the point that I'm arguing so it's irrelevant to the argument.
Maybe not entitled for the cost of accessing a place, eg a museum could charge entry (although the best ones don't), but viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience.
You're advocating for something you yourself would not participate in. If this was an actual situation that you'd be supportive of, then you'd just be advocating for exactly the situation you're in - DRM and other bullshit that limits the access to a "place". It's just not a physical place. No one wants that, including you, so there has to be some middle ground where artists can get paid for their work by the people who view it without having to needlessly restrict that access to physical places.
viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience
This would be great in a society where people can create art freely without needing to make a living. We do not live in such a society nor even such a planet.
Most people involved in making these products get paid only once, they don't get paid per copy sold - the ones that do get paid this way actually, by and large, have very little hand in producing it.
Again, a different argument from the one I'm making. This is only the case because people pay the distributors rather than paying the creators directly. The distributors have the money and so they're the ones that have the massive piles of funds necessary to produce these products.
You seem to be skirting around any of the valid negative points that the industry itself creates.
No, I'm not. I'm not arguing anything about the industry. This is yet again a completely separate argument.
Edit: And yet you left the original text in there for some reason... 🧐
This is a completely separate argument, that’s why it’s not valid.
It's not a separate argument, though. I've provided justification for why piracy should exist - to limit the price of goods and services, which are currently excessive, but would be even more so if piracy wasn't an option. That is a very valid point in this discussion.
One is infinite. The other is not. The scope of the loss matters.
EXACTLY!! EXACTLY. The scope of the loss is different.
If you are the victim of theft, you've not only lost a potential sale, you've also lost a tangible good that you have paid to produce. If you are the victim of copyright infringement, you've only lost the potential sale.
The two ideas are distinctly different. You claim they are the same. They are not.
You're on the cusp of recognising this.
Edit: And yet you left the original text in there for some reason…
I own up to my mistakes. I think you were a little bit hostile in your defense, understandably, as a result of the hostility you've received - along with all the downvotes. I know that can have an effect even when you know it doesn't matter. I certainly did myself, I saw the single downvotes to my replies and concluded that was from you. I may have been wrong, it doesn't really matter, but I can see you are engaging at least.
You're still in the wrong position, though. While it would be right to say copyright infringement is wrong, it is not theft. Stealing is the act of committing theft. Theft is defined differently to copyright infringement (piracy).
It's not a separate argument, though.
It absolutely is. I have not argued that piracy shouldn't exist nor have I made any argument about how much goods and/or services should cost. Both of those things are irrelevant to the point that I made and are distinctly different from the argument I made. The cost of something doesn't determine whether piracy is justified and my argument isn't whether piracy can or should be justified.
If you are the victim of copyright infringement, you've only lost the potential sale.
This is not true. While the loss would not be equal to a physical good, claiming nothing is lost assumes that people's time/effort/labor have no value and are free. They are not.
The two ideas are distinctly different. You claim they are the same. They are not. You're on the cusp of recognising this.
I do not claim they are the same. I already recognize they are different. You need to recognize that those are merely legal terms to differentiate how the legal system treats them. I am not arguing anything about the legality of the two nor am I arguing anything about copyright infringement. I am only talking about ingesting/consuming something without paying for it, regardless of how the law treats it (and that's not even considering that laws are different depending on where they are defined).
It absolutely is. I have not argued that piracy shouldn’t exist nor have I made any argument about how much goods and/or services should cost.
No, you've argued that piracy and theft are the same thing. I've explained how they are not. They are distinctly different.
This is not true. While the loss would not be equal to a physical good, claiming nothing is lost assumes that people’s time/effort/labor have no value and are free. They are not.
That isn't a loss related to piracy. That's something that happened regardless of whether or not piracy had occurred.
You are claiming that a potential revenue is akin to a loss. That is a flasehood.
I do not claim they are the same. I already recognize they are different.
You haven't though. You keep saying piracy is theft. Theft has a very clear definition - not just a legal definition, but a definition that has been around for far longer than you or I have been alive.
If, 500 years ago, a monk picked up a book and copied it, he would not be accused of theft. He's not paying the author - regardless of how recently the book was written - but he is diluting the author's work and their ability to sell it by producing his copy or copies. But that's not theft.
Copyright has only existed for a little over 100 years. Since that time, rightsholders have tried to argue that infringing on their copyright was theft, and deserving of similar punishment - all so that they could (they hope) profit more. They put their effort in already, now they feel they deserve money with no further effort (I can't help but draw back to your argument that people don't "deserve to view art", and note the irony). However the argument is just as false then as it is today. You are pushing a false narrative.
Copyright infringement is not theft. The two concepts are distinctly different.
I've explained how they are not.
You have not. I brought up a foundational argument that you have yet to refuse. You just keep repeating they're different as if it's a factual statement, completely ignoring that I've pointed out a fundamental way in which they are not that is outside of any legal or semantic meaning.
You are claiming that a potential revenue is akin to a loss. That is a flasehood.
It is not. If someone ingested that media then it ceases being "potential revenue". In the same way that a "potential" theft of a physical good isn't the same as the realized theft, the only situation where there is no loss is one where the person didn't pay for the good and didn't make use of/get the benefit of the good.
You haven't though.
Yes, I have. You said "copyright infringement" which is a legal term only. Copyright infringement and theft are not the same. Piracy and theft are. You can't conflate copyright infringement and piracy because that only is meaningful in a legal sense.
Again, you're just making a semantic distinction and yet my distinction and argument are far more foundational than that.
"If you don’t agree that the value of the product is worth what someone is charging for it, don’t buy it."
Good idea, I'll pirate it instead.
Why should you be entitled to consume something that you haven't paid for?
Because that is how markets work. You would not buy a doughnut if you had access to them for free (say in a workplace). By this logic you are stealing every time you don't pay for something making literally every interaction or lack of interaction a monetary transaction or theft.
It would be worse for you to "lose" money and the creators gain nothing but that's not the situation you're discussing.
That is literally the situation I'm discussing. I want to watch Haibane Renmei. My options are a) find whatever streaming service has the rights to it, pay them their toll, and have temporary access to it, b) find a streaming service that doesn't have the rights to it, don't pay them anything, and have temporary access to it, c) find a new copy of it that gives money directly to the original creators, or d) find a used copy of it, and give money to some random person on the internet. Edit: there's also e) renting the DVD from Family Video. Functionally the same as D, re: the creators getting their money from me watching their show.
The only one of these that you seem to have a problem with is B, and I don't think that's morally consistent. You've been saying time and again that piracy is wrong because I gain something while the creators gain nothing, and that's exactly what happens when I buy a used DVD.
That's not true. It is not "literally the situation you're discussing". You don't "lose" money if you're paying for access to something. Paying for a ticket to a museum to see artwork isn't you "losing" money just because you don't walk out of the museum with something tangible.
You're just arguing semantics about the word "creator" now. The other options you've provided are still basing your choice on a tangible good which is not the situation here. You can't buy a "used" version of an intangible good so the rest of your argument is irrelevant to the situation actually being argued.
Now we're arguing semantics and I'm not going to do this. I PAID money. I GAVE SOMEONE money. I HAVE LESS money. If you can't engage with the actual ideas behind what I'm saying, then what are you even doing?
I see no distinction between the tangible and intangible goods here. They are all methods for displaying a show on my screen for the express purpose of me seeing it with my eyes. What difference does it make if that method involves a tangible object? The moral argument you've been making this entire time is that by pirating a show, I consume it without the people who made it getting compensated.
In another thread, you said
At the end of the day, the argument is that someone is taking the value of the work/product when they consume/ingest it without compensating the creator of that work/product.
If this is why you believe piracy is theft, then you must necessarily believe that buying used copies, borrowing discs from friends, and renting from video stores are all also theft, because the statements you've made regarding why piracy is theft applies to all of those situations.
You gave someone money who had permission to sell that thing to you. You have less money and, in exchange, you have access to consume the media/intangible good in question. This is not semantics. This is the literal situation that you were arguing.
The fact that you don't see a distinction between tangible and intangible goods is exactly why you keep making arguments that make no sense and don't logically hold up against the point I'm making. The difference matters because, even in your other irrelevant examples of buying used copies, borrowing discs, or renting, someone had to pay for that physical item or you would not have access to it. Intangible and tangible matters here because you can't buy a used copy of an intangible item!
So... no. I don't have to believe any of the other things you've mentioned because, in every single one of those cases, there is a tangible good that someone paid for which the author/creator was compensated that is physically limited that doesn't exist for an intangible good. Your argument is still fundamentally flawed and, therefore, not a valid argument against my point.
The logic just doesn't flow. If the problem with illegally streaming content is that the creators don't get paid for my consumption of their product, then buying a used copy is just as bad, because I'm still consuming the product without the creators being compensated. You can say it's different because I'm using physical media that can't be copied rather than using a copy of a digital file, but the end result remains the same: I consume the media, the creators don't get paid. You can say it's different because the physical media only allows one person to consume it, but... The original owner already did. I suppose they can't rewatch it after they sell the disc to me, but they have definitely already consumed it.
It also brings up a complicated question: what if the original buyer of that disc rips the disc onto their computer before selling it to me? Is that immoral? I mean, they already watched the show. They might not have a legal right to keep that digital copy of the contents of that disc, but it seems weird to me to suggest that it's immoral to keep a copy of a show you've already seen.
Finally, if buying a used copy is fine because the original owner of that copy already paid for it, then my illegal consumption doesn't matter at all–the person who bought the disc was going to buy the disc anyway. They already paid for it, regardless of whether I would come and buy it from them in the future.